DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of claims 1-4 in the reply filed on 2/23/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
It appears the term “chemical substances introduction means” found throughout the specification should read “chemical substance introduction means”.
Pg. 12 Ln. 6-7 “The method provides to vary the electric and chemical melting profile MP in an optimized way according to the specific step of the process”. There appears to be words missing between “provides” and “to”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Specifically, claim 1 recites the limitation of a “chemical substances [sic] introduction means”. The Examiner is interpreting the “chemical substances [sic] introduction means” to be burners, lances, or injectors of oxygen, coal and other additives, per the specification as filed in Pg. 7 Ln. 5-7.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lundh (US 9572203 B2) in view of Bryant (US 2020/0393199 A1) and Terlicher (US 2023/0040089 A1, foreign priority date: Dec. 23, 2019).
Regarding claim 1, Lundh teaches an electric arc furnace with one or more electrodes (Abstract) with injection units arranged for supplying oxygen to a melt (Col. 3 Ln. 24-33). The furnace also comprises at least one control unit (Fig. 1 #31) used for controlling a melting process in the electrical arc furnace. The control system further comprises a processing unit (Fig. 1 #11) and control units (Col. 5 Ln. 1-15; Fig. 1 # 9, 13, 16, 18, 21). The controls adjust various process inputs of the melting process, such as (Col. 5 Ln. 39-45):
The power supply to a stirrer (u1);
The power supply to the electrodes (u2);
Oxygen flow to the melt through the injection units (u3);
Flow of burner gas (u4); and
The amount of carbon injected to the melt (u5).
Additionally, process variables such as the measured temperature of the melt or furnace wall (defined as y or d) are collected by sensors dispersed though the furnace. The processing unit is arranged to receive these process variables. (Col. 8 Ln. 59-64; Col. 7 Ln. 3-10).
A method for controlling the furnace melting process is also taught, wherein the total power consumption is minimized by solving a defined minimization problem (Col. 8, Ln. 33-50). Particularly, a loss function is minimized based on calculations of the following state model of the melting process:
x
k
+
1
=
f
s
(
x
k
,
u
k
,
d
k
)
Where fs is a defined state function, x is a state variable, u is a process input, and d is a process variable. The state variable x can be values such as the quantity of liquid and solid metal or slag that comprise the melt, the concentration of CO2 in the flue gas, the temperature of the solid, etc. (see Col. 7 Ln. 25-38). Overall, the method comprises the following steps:
The processing unit receives process variables d(k) from sensors.
Based on the received process variables d(k), previously used process input variables u(k-1), and previous state variables x(k-1), the processing unit estimates the current value of the state variable x(k).
the processing unit solves the above minimization problem to calculate a new process input u(k) that would minimize a desired process property (e.g. Energy consumption)
the process input u(k) is transmitted to the furnace via the control units (Fig. 1 # 9, 13, 16, 18, 21)
This method is reiterated for successive increments of time until a desired state x has been reached.
In all, Lundh’s control system, processing unit, control units, loss & state functions, and minimization problem read on the claimed management apparatus, calculation module, management module, cost function, and optimization function, respectively. Additionally, the taught inputs & variables read on the claimed melting profiles. Finally, the taught reiterative method of determining the present state variable based on a previously collected state variable reads on the claimed comparison between parameters conducted within the claimed calculation module.
However, Lundh fails to teach either a decoupling unit disposed between an electricity grid and the electric furnace, or a storage module.
Bryant teaches an electric arc furnace comprising one or more electrodes, a power system which powers the arc furnace, a process and control system controlling the operation of the electric arc furnace, and a computing device [0067]. Particularly, the computing device is configured to conduct the following method (Clm. 1, [0067], Fig. 5):
Receive and establish baseline state measurements of the electric arc furnace.
Receive new state measurements of the electric arc furnace and perform statistical testing of the baseline state measurements against the new state measurements.
Identify as an anomaly a failed statistical test and to classify the identified anomaly.
Send a notification of the classified anomaly.
The state measurements comprise electrical system measurements such as a per-phase current or a voltage; mechanical system measurements such as an electrode mast position and transformer tap position; and process measurements such as a weight of a charged material, steel temperature, and carbon & oxygen contents [0090-93]. In all, the baseline measurements in Bryant read on the instantly claimed melting profiles.
Baselines of the state measurements are created upon startup of the arc furnace and at subsequent time intervals [0106-108]. These measurements are stored in a local storage 118 for future comparison with new baseline measurements, and then ultimately stored in a local database 122 for future reference (Fig. 1 # 118, 122; [0131]).
Therefore, it would be obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to incorporate the local database of Bryant into the electric furnace of Lundh because it enables a predictable and advantageous result of long-term tracking and monitoring of furnace performance via a collection of historical measurements.
However, neither Lundh nor Bryant teach a decoupling unit disposed between an electricity grid and the electric furnace.
Terlicher teaches a melting apparatus 10 comprising an electric arc furnace 11, a control and command unit 21, and a power supply apparatus 31 configured to electrically power the electric arc furnace ([0107], Fig. 1 #10, 11, 31). The power supply apparatus takes a mains voltage, current, and frequency drawn from the electric power grid and transforms them to a base voltage, current, and frequency which ultimately powers the connected electric arc furnace’s electrodes [0055-60]. The control & command unit is connected to the power supply apparatus and is configured to regulate the modified current and voltage from the power supply apparatus to the electrodes [0150-151]. In all, the taught control and command unit reads on the claimed management apparatus, and the taught power supply apparatus reads on the claimed decoupling unit.
Therefore, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to incorporate the power supply apparatus of Terlicher into the combined teachings of Lundh and Bryant because enables precise control of power inputs into the electric arc furnace.
Regarding claims 2 and 3, the process inputs u(k) used in Lundh’s state model and minimization problem can comprise the power supply to the electrodes (i.e. an electric power supply quantity), the flow of burner gas onto the furnace, or the amount of oxygen injected into the melt (i.e. chemical supply quantities). While Lundh does not state that the process inputs can be a current, voltage, or frequency, it is well-known that that the value of the power supply to the electrodes can be deconstructed into AC voltage, current, and frequency values.
Regarding claim 4, Bryant’s taught computing device reads on the claimed management module. Particularly, baseline state measurements processed by the computing device are stored in a local storage 118 for future comparison with new baseline measurements, and then ultimately stored in a local database 122 for future reference (Fig. 1 # 118, 122; [0131]).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAVIER FLORES whose telephone number is 571-272-9130. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30AM-5:00PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, KEITH WALKER can be reached at 571-272-3458. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/J.F./Examiner, Art Unit 1735
/KEITH WALKER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1735
Prosecution Insights